Tweaking the Beamdog NPC's a bit

Comments

What I mean is that don't you realize that you're being supremely arrogant and subjective, so much so that it's difficult for your opinion to apply to others? Why is your interpretation of a line of dialogue, a subjective interpretation as I at least don't share it, give credence to causing many other people grief?

And I'm not dismissing content outright, I'm saiyng that if it's not carefully applied it sticks out and causes a countereffect. It chases customers away instead of drawing them in. This is exactly what people are complaining about.

Making that encounter a PID would not change Neera as a person. Instead of running for her life, she's hiding for her life, and reaches out to you when she sees you approach her. Can't you not see how arrogant it would be to keep things as they are on account of somebody just not wanting that encounter to be a PID?

What I mean is that don't you realize that you're being supremely arrogant and subjective, so much so that it's difficult for your opinion to apply to others? Why is your interpretation of a line of dialogue, a subjective interpretation as I at least don't share it, give credence to causing many other people grief?

(...)

I do believe that part of your reply should have been written in first person, and I do believe I am not alone in that. Not commenting further for reasons of wanting to be friendly.

I'll save this thread for when someone asks me the definition of "first world problems".

As someone who plays as a completionist I think that making Neera immortal is great. You can reject her from your party if you don't want her, but you can't resurrect her if she dies in that battle - this encounter is my exception in every no-reload run I do.

Hells, there is even a mod, made by a solid modder (unlike myself), that solves this issue already.

Thing is, there's a significantly higher burden of proof to change something rather than to keep it the way it is. I mean, I dislike the BG2 cutscene, but on further reflection it's not as long as the unskippable dream sequences or the beginning to the Unseeing Eye quest. It's irritating, but enough for me to actually ask for a change for that? Not nearly irritating enough.

I reserve that level of loathing for Hexxat, frankly, but even with her I prefer to just kill her outright rather than ask for a developer to change optional content for.

I don't think the problem is in the details of what exactly she says. It's the story her lines are telling you. She's in immediate danger and you get to decide to either rescue the damsel in distress or be nasty or evil or a coward and let her get caught. Wouldn't make much sense to have both her and the red wizards just have a lunchbreak or sit there and check what's going on on facebook until you decide it's time to talk to her.

It's possible that charname and party arrive in Beregost severly injured and/or with one or more companions dead. And in trying to get to the temple (direct route through Beregost on the right, exit to temple), you are accosted by Neera.

Refusing to help in those circumstances would not make you evil, nasty or a coward. You help nobody at all by getting yourself killed.

There's good reason that the temple map next door allows you to get to the temple from Beregost without further fighting. Rest of the map yes, but the straight path Beregost/temple is clear. I find it odd that the design of the original game, that seemed to understand how people played, has been disregarded. And even stranger that people are defending the decision.

BG is an RPG and of course it is limited. And because it's limited, no developer should have created a scenario where there is a possible no win outcome and for no good reason either.

It's a contrived encounter and it was created by somebody. Pushing the responsibility for the "no win" onto the player is wrong IMO.

That man went on about how the message of Baldurs Gate is that being good is good and being evil is evil. And BG is one game where the evil roster is fully fleshed out, was always wildly popular, contains clearly stronger characters, you can mix evil guys with good guys with hardly any hassle... If there's a message to BG it's that casting Fireballs from the edge of enemy visibility will usually reward you with more XP then resolving things any other way, and the game will mostly make sure you don't miss any info if you shoot first and ask questions later. I don't play that way, but I'd be lying if I claimed it wasn't like that. The first two NPC's you meet in the game are evil and one of them gives you a healing potion if he likes you. And then they give you the same exact quest as the... neutral ones would. That's Baldurs Gate.

But I'm somehow arrogant for calling his viewpoint extremely specific.

You said he shouldn't express his viewpoint. "Arrogant" is one word for that...

You should maybe think about toning down the "FFS" and "by all that's holy!" and consider the difference between disagreeing with/lacking respect for someone's position, and lacking respect for/putting down the person who expressed it.

Inb4 "why should I??" - you started this by saying you want to be a neutral messenger relating the reasonable part of the viewpoint of others, in a way that it doesn't get buried in acrimony and argument relating to less reasonable issues. I have to say, you are failing pretty badly in achieving your stated goal.

Right, but his viewpoint is so specific that he ought to know himself that there's no way it can be taken to be meaningful. It's like if someone only drinks beer mixed with wine, and decides to talk about beer. What does he even know about beer?

There's a bunch of people here who have very, very specific views abot Baldurs Gate, and a lot of it seems to be more of a reflection of their own personal interpretations of things rather than what's actually going on on screen. If that sort of thing is to be taken into account why not take an actual mad person, pop them full of halucinogens, sit them to play some BG and then take their feedback? Serious question, it'll have as much to do with the actual game of BG as would the opinon of someone who thinks it's a black and white game where good is rewarded or evil is punished*. It's very much not, but if someone wants to play that way - fine. But that person's going to have a straaaaange perspective or even be completely unaware of other people's perspectives. That guy certainly seems like that.

Or should the opinon of someone who says somethign to the ammount of "Fans of Baldurs Gate should not be taken into account when considering Baldurs Gate: Enchanced Edition" be valued? How is this person being serious? It's sold as "Baldurs Gate" enchanced edtion. Most of it IS Baldurs Gate. Not even Baldurs Gate 2, but Baldurs Gate. It's also sold as Baldurs Gate "Enhaced Edition" not "Baldurs Gates: Some random dude's mod". I certainly wouldn't have bought "Baldurs Gate: Some random dude's mod". Is it not expected that IDK people who played and liked the game before would be the customers most likely to buy it?

Am I wrong to think that this person is not all there? How do I express this in a non-insulting way? I don't care to insult this person, but many people here are really talking out of a incredibly specific, self-centered perspective.

*Strictly speaking good increases your reputation, and evil decreases it but you know what I mean, you don't have to go out of your way to be good or out of your way to avoid evil at all. BG is rarely given enough credit for it, but it's one of the few games where being evil was actually quite comfortable, viable and enjoyable. You don't have to LIKE that, but you're really missing a lot if you don't at least understand that.

The game really really really rewards fireballs. It's just too profitable. I don't pick party members according to this specifically because it's too straightforward and easy, and I avoid Edwin like the plague for the same reason... But really, most situations you are better off just loading the game to right before you can see whatever and shooting a few fireballs at it from the fog. Like, more XP, more loot, you don't get hit by insta-death attacks that way, less risk from being hit by regular attacks, etc.

I don't consider that briliant design or a very enlightened way to play, but it is the most common way the game was played. It helps that it doesn't take being a genious to figure out how beneficial and powerful this is, which broadens the appeal. It broadened the appeal of the game a lot, too, because any damn fool can chuck fireballs at stuff and feel good about themself. This is also why there's no Fireball in Planescape Torment, and why Ignus is what he is, a parody of the most common stereotype of a typical BG players ideal character. No joke. No Fireball on Ignus, though, that's a joke, and a good one.

Right, but his viewpoint is so specific that he ought to know himself that there's no way it can be taken to be meaningful. It's like if someone only drinks beer mixed with wine, and decides to talk about beer. What does he even know about beer?

Like someone who says that only played BG1 and decides to talk about BG2-style NPC interaction.

Right, but his viewpoint is so specific that he ought to know himself that there's no way it can be taken to be meaningful. It's like if someone only drinks beer mixed with wine, and decides to talk about beer. What does he even know about beer?

Like someone who says that only played BG1 and decides to talk about BG2-style NPC interaction.

What does this person even know about Baldur's Gate?

All that's necessary. I bought BG, not BG 2. They are not the same game, and sticking something from the latter into the former without a lot of thought and caution is not always going to result in an improvement. At the very least it's going to stick out, and this might have very counterproductive unitintended concequences. This thing does, and there's a very easy fix for that.

Like it was told before, the design choice for the new npcs was made within the BG2 scope. At the time of the original BG2 release, the higher npc interactions was seen as a clear improvement over the BG1 style of npc. So, you have a company that want to enhance those classics. What do you do ? You go with the old style, which is seen as a clear inferior implementation, or you go with the BG2 style, which was seen as an improvement ? The choice is obvious. Sure, you're going to grate some purists, but those you can't please anyway.

Second, since you admit yourself that you never played BG2, are you sure you're entitled to speak about what the majority of the fans wants ? Also, what is your source for the perceived discontentment ? Don't forget that trolls usually speak louder, so if you think that those who dislike the EE changes are the majority of the fanbase, your argumentation relies on a speculative assumption, I'm sorry to tell you that.

Third, you're arguing with people who agreed with you. Plenty of us are ready to admit that Neera's implementation is flawed, myself included. AstroBryGuy even gave a really sensible solution to that problem. But that doesn't seem enough for you, because you keep pushing PIDs. Those would change the very design of the encounter. No matter what you think about the quality of the Neera implementation, that's what Beamdog went with. So, to keep the Beamdog's design choice AND satisfy the need of those who want to avoid that encounter altogether, AstroBryGuy's solution is the best. Maybe you consider three lines of dialog with Neera to be insufferable, but that's being really finicky here.

People are not arguing with you on the quality of the implementation of the new npcs, they are questionning your stipulation about the fanbase and your entitlement to speak in the name of what you perceive as the majority of players.

why not take an actual mad person, pop them full of halucinogens, sit them to play some BG and then take their feedback?

I don't fault your hyperbole - lord knows I employ it - but I don't actually know what point this makes. Someone who disagrees with you is mentally ill and not worthy of expression? Such a position is entirely untenable.

Like it was told before, the design choice for the new npcs was made within the BG2 scope. At the time of the original BG2 release, the higher npc interactions was seen as a clear improvement over the BG1 style of npc. So, you have a company that want to enhance those classics. What do you do ? You go with the old style, which is seen as a clear inferior implementation, or you go with the BG2 style, which was seen as an improvement ? The choice is obvious. Sure, you're going to grate some purists, but those you can't please anyway.

As I have said before, I personaly don't mind the characters having more to say. I'm a Planescape Torment fan. Back in the day you had people who understood english and liked do read, and those liked Planescape Torment, and those who didn't read or understand english very well and liked Baldurs Gate. Really, that's the way it was, over here, with D&D games. After BG became popular, there was a flood of new people into the D&D community, and you knew right away who came from BG and who was there before - the fireball chuckers and archers increased in numbers and the demand for hack and slash went up. So if you ask me whether characters with backstory are an improvement - yes, certainly.

The problem is that the BG2 system comes across as alien if you introduce it into BG 1. This causes a chain reaction of negativity, because it draws attention to the NPC's using it. Since they are the only NPC's using it, they are the only ones drawing attention to themselves. This alone makes it look like these characters are being prioritized over... well, even the main story, really, as the main story is quite nebulous up until you're in Baldurs Gate.

Now, if you plop them down somewhere unobtrusively and let people who want them find them, that would be enough. They'd be these nicely well done bonus EE characters. There's people grubling about the Baeloth somewhere out there, I'm sure, but way way fewer of them, primarily because you have to go looking for him to find him (I actually had to google him up for the achievement). This is a little TOO far out of the way, I dislike all drow, and didn't need him at all - but I didn't feel like he was imposed on me. I went looking for him, found him, all fine. Dorn was also all right in this regard - if you go south with Montaron and Xzar you can miss him entirely, but that's fine.

But Neera gets in your face, in a game where characters don't do that, and it stands out. I've explained over and over why exactly this is a problem. If she could be missed entirely by not talking to her - not by avoding part of the first town, not by navigating an obscure dialogue, possibly in a foreign language, but simply in the same way you avodi NPC's in the game by convention - not clickin on them, she'd be fine. She'd be another NPC but one with bonus dialogue. She'd be great.

Do I need to explain this further? It's not grating purists, it's overly pushy for people who didn't even like BG to begin with and it's at odds with the design. I would not mind every single NPC in the game having as much dialogue and it's own quest - I see PST as baseline, less dialogue and backstory than that and it's hack and slash to me. But I would not enjoy even PST if every compainon was putting me in dramatic situations when instead of leting me explore their interaction at my leisure. Or not even that - It'd reall rub me the wrong way if someone plopped another NPC in there and then pushed it straight into my face, when characters all of gaming thinks are cool are just way more discreet than that. Dak'kon's too pushy and unavoidable for my tastes, but that's understandable because the devs wanted to make sure you don't miss him.

Many people share this outlook, and if you haven't noticed how hated Neera is then what's can I do? It's not because of Neera. Make her intro PID and most of it goes away.

Second, since you admit yourself that you never played BG2, are you sure you're entitled to speak about what the majority of the fans wants ? Also, what is your source for the perceived discontentment ? Don't forget that trolls usually speak louder, so if you think that those who dislike the EE changes are the majority of the fanbase, your argumentation relies on a speculative assumption, I'm sorry to tell you that.

What many of you seem to not realize is that BG 2 sold better than BG 1, but it sold better on the success of BG 1. It wasn't necessarily better liked. BG 1 was the game which "saved CRPG's" and due to it being playable with less grasp of either english or AD&D mechanics, it was actually quite a bit more well played than it was bought. Most of Eastern Europe was on PC's and just about everybody pirated games. (They were insanely expensive imports and nobody in Eastern Europe had the money for them even if they didn't want to pirate, don't go judging - we buy stuff now, and often). These people are now a significant portion of nostalgia buyers, because they now have income and Steam.

So arguing that actual BG 2 fans are more numerous than people who only played BG 1... I'm wouldn't be very sure of that. You know how many copies of Heroes of Might and Magic III originaly sold in Russia? Probably not a single one (caricature). Can you guess which country has the greatest number of Heroes of Might and Magic III fans in the world? I'm not from Russia, but it's safe to say that every male person who owned a PC with 4 or 5 years difference from me in my highschool alone played Baldurs Gate. Not nearly the same number played BG 2, as it was way less accessible.

I know plenty of people personaly who swear by "Baldurs Gate" as the best game ever - but they don't mean Baldurs Gate 2 when they say it. Most of them don't know what "role playing" is. They thing it just means "video game". And I've not heard one single person among them say that BG:EE is worth buying, in fact all I hear is the oposite.

Should these people be listened to? Hey, if they got a good point, yeah. As far as I know, people in this discussion are a vocal minority and I think this is a much more true to life assesment than the other way around.

They haven't. And that guys solution is not the best. The problem with that encounter is that there's a lvl 1 (most likely) non-Edwin mage jumping the player and trying to guilt you into getting them into the party. This is happening in the first town, at a time when this is more intense than the main story. This is not "BG:EE" this is "BG:Random dude's mod edition". The problem is primarily in the fact that Beamdog content is forcing itself to the forefront.

It doesn't need to. It's already going to stand out. If it was a PID it would be tasteful and respectful "BG:EE enchanced the game by adding a Wild Mage you can find". The way it is now comes across as "Some noobs are trying to cash in on the franchise but they don't want you to play what you paid for and thing their stuff is more important, but it obviously isn't and it doesn't matter if you're interested they'll find you".

This is what's making Neera insufferable. And what's making you all seem crazy is the insistence that making her a PID would "change her encounter". It wouldn't. Really, you're overracting to her lines in a bizzare way. Even if it did anything to her, that's not remotely close to what her not being a PID is causing, and her dialogue isn't such that you can just tell her to go away after it's all done. Who's going to click "I don't want to be part of this?" Nobody, they won't even know what's going on until the fight starts. Who's going to want a lvl 1 Wild Mage - not very many people. Who'll tell her to go away after just saving her from vivisection? Not even evil people.

The problem is that she's not behaving like the other NPC's, Viconia not included, she's in the first town, in the street, and is acting in a way which makes her seem more important than other NPC's and even the main quest and she isn't. Like the guy who was hating on her said "It's the last straw, who does she think she is?". That's the problem, and that problem is solved simply by making her a PID.

If that's somethig Beamdog doesn't want to do - that's their thing, but there's no way to argue anything esle. I made a mistake, this was not meant to be a discussion. There's no discussing this. I made the thread to check if there's a good reason for her not being a PID. The closest thing to that would be "recording new lines" and that's hokey because her lines work fine as they are. Everything else was just contrarianism.

As far as I'm concerned the thread can be closed. Beamdog got all they needed, what they do is their thing.

That's a paltry number of votes for both games, and more people who think either of those is the best video game ever have never heard of metacritic. Or are not very good with the latin alphabet.

Do you know why Dota is so profitable? Because the Russians and the Chineese never stopped playing it. Somebody said "lets repackage this PC thing which the Russians and the Chineese are so fond of" and now it's making tons of money while being actually free to play. You name a major PC title from the CD era onwards, more East Europeans played it and have an opinion on it than there are people who bought it.

The thread did not need to go on this long at all. I sincrely, really apologize for it. I opened it, and hope it can be closed. Thank you.

There is not point to it. All that needed to be said was said multiple times. People who can do something about the issue have read it. It's their thing whether they do anything, really. Feel free to close it.